🚀 go-pugleaf

ahgrabow@apgea.army.mil (Alexander H. Grabowski <ahgrabow>) writes:

>In article <1nmbdfINNj14@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>[... ]
>>>- I don't know what I am talking about....
>>
>>This one is about the only true fact in your article.
>>
>See? I *knew* (that's why I told in advance) what 3rd-class arguments
>to expect from the pro-gun follow-ups. MY OH MY- It's all sooo simple...

No, it's not; but in this case your "facts" are wrong.  If you had
bothered to check you would know that.  Several people have posted
sources of factual information on this topic.

>>[...]
>VERY simple reason. If a country has to defend itself, let the 
>professionals do the job.

But what if the citizens have to defend themselves from the government?
Read your history books man!  Not to mention the US Constitution.

>In the modern theatre, we need highly skilled

Highly skilled?  Chuckle.

>*mature*

Bahahahahahaha!

>people as soldiers, not 18th century minutemen. Sorry, but that's
>the way it is.

Give me a huge break.

Why don't you join the military (any branch), and serve full and part time
for five or six years, and then come back and say that with a straight face.

I believe that the US has one of the finest militaries in the world,
and that there _are_ thousands of highly skilled, mature people in the
US military, however the _average_ person is, in my experience, not.
(and I am not referring exclusivley to enlisted personnel)

Your implication that soldiers are more "skilled" and "mature" than
civilians is laughable.  Your further implication that civilian gun
ownership should therefore be severly restricted is equally laughable.

Have a nice day.

-Chris
-- 
Chris Mathes, Metters Industries, Inc.      UUCP: {..!}uunet!metter!chris
Tel:(703)418-0323                           INET: chris@metter.fmpmis.metter.com
"The Tao of Programming flows far away and returns on the wind of morning."-TToP